Telescope in Lord Of The Rings: ROTK!

In article cauEb.425431$275.1301997@attbi_s53, Jackie wrote:

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
...

I am taking the next two weeks off from work. The first thing on my list
of
things to do when nobody is looking, is to sneak off and see this movie as
a
weekday matinee.

I saw the first two of this series of movies and I must admit that I don't
get the hype... should I have read the books first?? I know they've been out
since before I was born, but I have to admit that I was not familiar with
the characters or names until the movies came out. Am I missing something by
seeing the movies without having read the books first? The movies have great
special effects, but the whole experience of viewing them left me flat in
just about every other way.

Jackie

Hey Jackie and all,

As a longtime Tolkien fan, I have a mixed review of the movies.
They're visually wonderful (I love the elephants! and Gollum!).
But I'd like to throw some brickbats at the screenwriters. It often
seemed that they kept lines from the original text just so that fans could
latch onto them, even where they didn't make much sense out of context.
Having Legolas recognize Shadowfax as one of the Mearas, for example --
so what? Or the bit about the dead going to "a land under a swift sunrise".

They've kept a lot of the books' action, and cut it in sensible ways
as if they cared about the integrity of the battle scenes, but warped
the characters; Tolkien's strong sense of the difference between
good and evil has mostly evaporated. Tolkien's good guys are marked
by the oaths they keep and the respect they grant others: imposing
their will by having Gandalf/Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli muscling into
Theoden's court, as in the 2nd film, just didn't fit.
And Sam's temptation by the Ring, where he's offered "a garden swollen
to the size of a realm", which he rejects out of his native homebound
good sense -- I was sorry to see that dropped in favor of a brief game
of keepaway with Frodo. And, of the three strong women
in the original novels (Galadriel, Arwen and Eowyn), only Galadriel
seems to have kept her dignity and strength consistently here.

Still I was impressed by *some* of the innovations they made in the story,
and the scenery, real and synthetic, is magnificent. Minas Tirith
looks perfect, better than I'd imagined it.

That funny telescope *was* cool even if we only got to see it briefly.
[See, this message isn't completely off-topic after all.]
They did clearly pay tremendous attention to detail.
And as an epic, you don't go to see it for its psychological
character development.

I'll see it again for more of those details, even with regret.
But if Middle-earth isn't a familiar world, I'm not sure what the
movies will do for you except being a high-powered action film and an
impressive demonstration of computer graphics.

Stuart Levy

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
...

I am taking the next two weeks off from work. The first thing on my list
of
things to do when nobody is looking, is to sneak off and see this movie as
a
weekday matinee.

I saw the first two of this series of movies and I must admit that I don't
get the hype... should I have read the books first?? I know they've been out
since before I was born, but I have to admit that I was not familiar with
the characters or names until the movies came out. Am I missing something by
seeing the movies without having read the books first? The movies have great
special effects, but the whole experience of viewing them left me flat in
just about every other way.

Jackie

"Kevin Rehberg" wrote in message
news:26c7782bcbc57e939ae9d6029ce14cbf.61639@mygate .mailgate.org...
Hey all,

Anyone else see the last installment of the LOTR trilogy yet? If you
haven't....GO SEE IT! I saw it last night, and it was
un-fricking-believable! Seamless special effects, epic battle scenes,
endearing character-building moments....this movie has it all. Unlike
the original Star Wars trilogy, which ended with a whimper, this series
ends with a BANG (and really makes Lucas's last two prequels look
pitiful)! I can't wait to see it again. A true masterpiece.


I am taking the next two weeks off from work. The first thing on my list of
things to do when nobody is looking, is to sneak off and see this movie as a
weekday matinee. There's a good chance I'll have the entire theater to
myself at that time, which means I can lose myself completely in the film.
Maybe I'll go early and watch it twice. g

Thanks for the upbeat review!!

--
-Stephen Paul

"Jskies187" wrote in message
...

The Dish was another good one.

AGREED! A very underrated gem indeed and one of my favorite "space" themed
movies of all time!

Jackie

"Jackie" wrote in message news:d6uEb.147064$_M.721876@attbi_s54...
"Jskies187" wrote in message
...

The Dish was another good one.

AGREED! A very underrated gem indeed and one of my favorite "space" themed
movies of all time!

Jackie

'Chain Reaction' featured the largest refractor in the world. At least
for a few seconds.

"Jackie" wrote in message news:d6uEb.147064$_M.721876@attbi_s54...
"Jskies187" wrote in message
...

The Dish was another good one.

AGREED! A very underrated gem indeed and one of my favorite "space" themed
movies of all time!

Jackie

'Chain Reaction' featured the largest refractor in the world. At least
for a few seconds.

"Jskies187" wrote in message
...

The Dish was another good one.

AGREED! A very underrated gem indeed and one of my favorite "space" themed
movies of all time!

Jackie

All of 5 seconds? Doesn't sound like a good movie to me. The last
movie I saw was 'Contact' in 1997. There were many shots of
telescopes, including Arecibo and the VLA for a significant portion
of the movie. All in all it wasn't too shabby, but 'Apollo 13' is still
my favorite.

The Dish was another good one.


john

Bob Ames wrote:

"Kevin Rehberg" wrote:

Did anyone else that has seen it catch the crude refractor (it's
basically an objective and a couple other elements held together with
sticks)in the foreground of one of the Rivendel? You can only see it
for a total of about 5 seconds, but it's still nice to see some type of
astronomy equipment in one of the greatest movies of all time.

All of 5 seconds? Doesn't sound like a good movie to me. The last
movie I saw was 'Contact' in 1997. There were many shots of
telescopes, including Arecibo and the VLA for a significant portion
of the movie.

I used to live in Albuquerque, not all that far from the VLA, one of the
VLBA scopes in Los Alamos, and the Sunspot observatories near Cloudcroft
NM. (Coincidence: I now live on Sunspot Drive in Las Vegas NV).

All in all it wasn't too shabby, but 'Apollo 13' is still
my favorite.

"The Right Stuff." 'Nuff said. Drove by Edwards AFB a few weeks
ago--brought back memories of that flick.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Bob Ames wrote:
"Kevin Rehberg" wrote:

Did anyone else that has seen it catch the crude refractor (it's
basically an objective and a couple other elements held together with
sticks)in the foreground of one of the Rivendel? You can only see it
for a total of about 5 seconds, but it's still nice to see some type of
astronomy equipment in one of the greatest movies of all time.

All of 5 seconds? Doesn't sound like a good movie to me. The last
movie I saw was 'Contact' in 1997. There were many shots of
telescopes, including Arecibo and the VLA for a significant portion
of the movie.

As a film featuring lots of (radio) astronomical equipment,
human struggle, and quirky personalities, I hope you get to see
"The Dish" some day.

A favorite scene is where, after one astronomer has
been filling a blackboard with hand-calculations of the lunar probe's
orbit so they can re-point the Parkes dish at it, the
(arrogant stuffed shirt) visitor points out that, after all,
it is well on its way to the moon and can't be more than a few
degrees from it. The moon is right out there in the sky, so can't
they just pick it up by sweeping? And they do.

Cheers

Stuart